Jieng Council of Eders attacks revitalized peace deal again

JUBA – South Sudan’s Jieng Council of Elders has attacked the revitalized peace agreement again saying the 2018 peace deal has contributed to the escalation of sub-national violence which has now been identified as an alarming issue by international organizations such as the United Nations.

In a statement on Friday, the tribal council says the country appears to be heading for another saying the peace agreement – as they stated in a statement last month, focuses on power-sharing among elites rather than addressing the issues that are ruining the county already fragile security situation.

“The country seems to be heading for another war and as elders and senior citizens, we do not want to witness another bloodshed in the country. Our people have had enough of the suffering and if we can contribute to alleviating this suffering by speaking the truth, we shall have performed our patriotic duty,” they said in the statement extended to Sudans Post.

“In our Press Statement in January, we stated that the Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of Conflict in South Sudan (R-ARCSS) is far worse than the 2015 ARCSS. Here is why: First, the Agreement is overly focused on power sharing among the parties and less about peace among the people of South Sudan. This Agreement simply lacks credibility when it comes to building peace at the local level as it has no single clause addressing real grassroots issues such as communal violence, cattle raiding and mundane gun criminality. In fact, the Agreement has fractured the country more, starting from the national, states, counties and payams levels to the level of communities,” it says.

The JCE claimed in the statement that the agreement has forced local populations to share power with parties that do not have presence in their areas, saying the county’s conflict among political elites has been expanded to the grass Roy by the agreement.

“The responsibility sharing at the states, counties, and payams is not properly understood at the local level and it has triggered local conflicts. People wonder why they are forced to accept sharing power in their counties and payams with parties which have no presence in their areas,” the statement said.

“The political conflict has simply been expanded by way of an agreement to areas that never experienced unrest before. This has unnecessarily politicized and militarized normal social relations in our rural areas. Current violent conflict episodes in Warrap, Lakes, Unity, Central Equatoria, Jonglei and Upper Nile states explain this phenomenon. This phenomenon was compounded by the abrupt dissolution of 32 states and county governments early last year, leaving no authority in charge of the entire countryside. This goes of course into the broader question of the quality of leadership and decision-making mechanisms in the country,” it added.

The statement then said that the “Agreement has instituted an experimental government in the country with six co-presidents running mini cabinets, a system never seen anywhere before. This structure of government is not workable and quite impractical, and it has led to paralysis of the institutions and decision-making processes everywhere in the country.”

“In fact, no one feels responsible for running the affairs of the country. Executive powers have been diffused and the President is technically handicapped with so many veto points in the cabinet and the presidency. It should not surprise anyone that it has taken a year just to form this government, which in the end is assured to fail.

“Agreement lacks international support. Key members of the international community such as the Troika (United States, United Kingdom and the Kingdom of Norway) and the European Union have refused to be witnesses or guarantors to the Agreement, an indication of their reservations.

“Even IGAD countries did not become guarantors to the Agreement, only Sudan and Uganda are guarantors. The process was simply handed over to Bashir, our erstwhile enemy, to arm-twist the parties into accepting an Agreement that is fraught with impractical clauses. Fourth, the Agreement failed to address the central problem of South Sudan, which is the political stalemate and leadership failure.

“As will be shown in the next section, leadership failure and political stalemate are the root causes of the conflict in South Sudan as indicated by the Obasanjo Report and the National Dialogue. Failing to address this fundamental issue is the single most important drawback of the R-ARCSS. Lastly, any agreement, no matter how imperfect it might be, can be made to work, provided there is political will and effective political leadership.

“Unfortunately, for the R-ARCSS, political will is exactly what it is lacking. The slow pace, coupled with selective implementation of the provisions of the Agreement, demonstrate the unwillingness of political leaders to move forward. What we see in fact are more efforts to undermine the Agreement and less practical initiatives to move it forward. This therefore renders any hopes for its success hollow and unrealistic.

“It is in this vein that we want to make it clear that we are not against the peace Agreement; we as a matter of principle, would like to see a workable peace agreement and the R-ARCSS is awfully unworkable.

“Way Forward-The government must take necessary actions now to prepare for the elections to take place. The current Transitional Period cannot and must not be extended as the country needs a democratic transition to consolidate peace. Among the most important steps that need to be taken now, include conducting census, revising the electoral law, reconstituting the Elections Commission, and registering political parties.

“The work on the permanent constitutions must also commence now because it is going to govern the next elections. It is imperative, therefore, that resources are made available for these processes. More importantly, the return of the displaced persons and refugees and the unification of the forces are prerequisites for both the census and credible elections.”